WHAAATTTTTT!!!!!!!!! U lucky Maldivian bastard! LOL

Who cares if there's no Dyno's or Auto Parts Stores around, you got ...well, just look at those pictures!@%$&^@!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hail.gif Maldives

 

Double_A, great pics, and great hosting! wink1.gif

 

its just cuz the Digital Camera does everything for you. if want to use Film. you need some skillz. The photography school i went to said that they are not going to use digital cameras beacuse it will not probably train people about real photography.

but hey.. i also own a Samsung Digimax V3 3.2 MEgapixels and the film camera i use is a Samsung SR4000 SLR>

 

Wow Maldives is beautiful, those beaches look like they need to be on a postcard

 

Tell me what a digital camera does for me other than not having to pay for film. My Nikkon SLR does everything but load the film. It has a auto feature that allows me to do no more than push a button. My digi camera does the same thing. However, like the 35mm, I can adjust everything with my digi. Focus, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc. SO what im getting at is, anything and everything i can do with one camera i can do with the other. The only thing better about a digi is, i can view the picture immediatly and i dont have to worry about cost of film, developing, scanning, etc.

If your talking more along the lines of developing, than yes the digi does do that for you, but in the real world there are so few of us that know how to or have the money to do our own developing.

 

Double_A great photos!!! My 35mm and digi are the same camera. lol So I can do the same things on each of them. But digi is cheaper because you don't have to worry about cost of film etc. I learned soem awesme stuff in my class though and really enjoyed working in the darkroom.

 

The differences between digital and film aren't a matter of "which is better," but it's more a matter of "which is right for a particular situation."

In film, wether it be 35mm or large format, you adjust your aperture, shutter speed, etc, and take the shot. Then your process it in the darkroom. The main beneffit here is you have a ton of choices of films, chemicals, techniques, and procedures to use in the darkroom. Every pro photographer has a very peculiar way of doing things, and ratios of developers, and other chemicals that he or she knows works best with their particular style.

In digitial, you set the camera settings exactly the same - aperture, shutter, etc. The advantage here is you can dynamically change ISO from one shot to the next. You don't have to shoot an entire roll at 1600 if you don't want to.

Although chemicals are not used in processing digital photos, they still need to be processed (something very few people except actual photographers really do). A lot of people with digitals just take the photo, save it, and go. Which is just fine - especially for the non-SLR snapshot-type digital cameras. But if you want to produce the same "photograph" as one who spent a lot of time developing their picture in the darkroom, you need to process your digital file afterwards.

In photoshop, one has to adjust the levels, curves, color balance, sharpness, etc. A photograph isn't taken, it's made. 95% of the work is in the darkroom (whether it is a real dark room, or the digital one). Any photo can be brought to life with the right lighting, contrast, and color.

The main advantage of film is archiving. Negatives last a lot longer than file formats. And sure, JPEG hasn't change a whole lot and JPEGS from 10 years ago still open fine. But if you are going to compare film to digital, you cannot even consider JPEGS. You have to compare film to RAW file formats, since that is the closest to film (being uncompressed, unprocessed, and full quality). The problem here is with camera manufacturers not having consistent RAW formats, having several versions of their RAW format, and not supporting older versions of those formats in the new versions of their software to process it. If all the companies could agree on one format, and that format was used across all lines, and continuously supported in the software, then this would be no longer an issue. This is the primary goal of the Adobe Digital Negative project.

There is also the issue of price and usability. You can get a 35mm SLR for under $200 and take great shots, and make huge high quality prints. For a digital SLR capable of making the same quality of print at the same size, you're looking at 8+ megapixels, and a $4000 camera.

Digital and film both have their places, and each has advantages where the other has disadvantages, and are in my opinion completely equal. It's just a matter of what the purpose of it is. Archiving, high quality large prints, price, etc film wins. For convenience, portability, and take-n-go, and quick sharing, digital would be better.

 

way to bring up the dead I know, but I like this picture I took of I-405 in Washington way back in the day.

really slow shutter speed + really small aperature + b&w film + 3:00am in the morning =



...that's with no tripod, lol. cool.gif

 

check this out, how many of you can say you drove on top of the clouds, Lol...

this was way back when I was in Northern Cali, man I love that state. If I wasn't going to school out in AZ I'd be in Cali...




you do NOT want to know how far of a drop it is on the other side of that cliff...yikes! not even a fence.

 

here is a new pic: